5 ms·

Re: climate change, what can the US and other actors do for "support" when China's still at Yes Minister step 1? China's the biggest emitter and doesn't care. [

Re: climate change, what can the US and other actors do for "support" when China's still at Yes Minister step 1? China's the biggest emitter and doesn't care. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#GHG_emissions_by_country/territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

rat87 2y ago
Start by not doing But China on global warming Second step do more as a country Third step try to shame or encourage China and other countries into doing more The US is still in the lead for total emissions historically and has a higher emissions per person. If it ignores it's responsibility it makes it very easy for China not to mention India or other lower total emissions countries to do the same. China is doing something if not enough. The goal should not be trying to find a way to avoid responsibility because that's how you get all countries to avoid doing anything. The point is too keep pushing all countries starting with yours to to more
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Yeah, that worked out phenomenally with US-china trade agreements!
- caminante 2y ago
  Not working. Do more? The US is buying pv panels produced on Chinese coal power. And no party is catching China's GHG productions. Arguing cumulative historicals is playing into propaganda, and per capita? China is doing enough? They're building new coal plants! You can't be serious.
  - rat87 2y ago
    We need to do much much much more. Starting with banning ICE cars by 2035 if not sooner Did I say China was doing enough? No Are they do enough? Hell no Is the US doing enough? Hell no Arguing historicals and per capita plays into Chinese propaganda because there is some truth to it. There is also truth to the fact that China emits twice as much as the US and almost a third of the worlds emissions. I don't like or trust the authorian dictatorship of China But are you going to get China to emit less then they currently do by reversing the already inadequate measures the US is taking? No. We need to do much much more and get China and other countries to do more If we use excuses of other countries to do less then so will they and we will all burn up together.
    - Lanolderen 2y ago
      Electric is seen as some miracle fix but it's really not that simple. ICE producton lines won't just disappear. Emergency and industrial vehicles will need to remain ICE to a large extent because you don't want to be reliant on the grid and because they need tons of range, there's a reason they pay for extra large fuel tanks. Vans and trucks don't really work as electric unless you're the post office just doing a trip around the block carrying no significant weight and stopping every 10 meters for the entire workday. Cost and fire concerns are an issue. People who travel long distance daily for work are much better served by a diesel. Also chucking all of our ICE cars at the third world probably isn't a good way of improving emissions. What we probably actually need is hybrids, eco fuels, lighter and smaller cars on average, (electric) motorcycles/scooters, vehicles that last longer, retrofit emission improvement kits for older vehicles, etc.
    - caminante 2y ago
      > did i say china was doing enough? No This is bad faith when your text says you want to shame them into doing more. Someone doing enough doesn't need to be shamed into further action.
droopyEyelids 2y ago
As an aside, there is a bit of a disconnect in how the west interpret's China as "not caring" whenever China doesn't make a lot of noise about publicly fixing something. The party can care, but decide something gets less priority, and put it in their backlog, the same way a project manager can! Air quality and industrial pollutants are a good example. Right now, China is prioritizing industrial expansion and energy stability until they hit whatever targets they have in mind. They'll be talking about carbon and pollution publicly once they can shut down their coal plants without destabilizing the grid.
- caminante 2y ago
  Listen to yourself. There is no disconnect. Deprioritizing is not caring. Saying otherwise is crazy!
jopicornell 2y ago
Let's not forget that China is the producer of the world and we are also responsible of that. Then there is the misconception that China doesn't care, but their cities are a lot greener and prepared for transitioning to green renewals than many west countries.
- caminante 2y ago
  > Their cities are a lot greener. Simple air quality indices would disagree. And greener than who? Are you going to cherrypick cities and energy mixes? You're still not offering a solution (carrot/stick) to "support" a solution.
forgotoldacc 2y ago
I love when people like you post with no concept of "per capita". Then there's always frustration at the people who do understand the concept and realize the "point" is simply a result of ignorance. China is at 30% renewable energy. The US is at 21%. And the president of the dirtiest country in the world, lots of smart people are saying it, that's just what they call the US these days, they say, passed an executive order to ban new solar and wind power. Sad!
- briandear 2y ago
  They say they are at 30% renewable. Much different than actually being 30%.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    except that these things are measurable and quite trivially
    - caminante 2y ago
      Not when actors report false numbers. China's track record is terrible on honest environmental reporting [0] and their power consumption has been greenwashed with electrification that makes a minor portion of their GHG growth [1]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/china-asks-embassies-to-stop-measuring-air-pollution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/china-asks-emb... [1] https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushed-emissions-sky-high-whats-next/ https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushe...
      - defrost 2y ago
        You have a 12 year old article about manual reporting of smog levels that's moot given the past decade of gas measuring satellites, and you ignore the fact that China isn't a closed country, it's one routinely visited by internationals including those from the IEA that directly inspect energy infrastructure.
DrScientist 2y ago
When comparing countries of different sizes - the fairest way to do so is on a per capita basis [1] and the US is still way ahead of China. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita [1] As somebody has pointed out below - a lot of those Chinese emissions are ultimately produced for use in other countries. Places like the UK have simply shipped their emissions overseas - then complain about these countries rising emissions.
- caminante 2y ago
  China has been responsible for 90% of the global growth in emissions since 2015. [0] Their population didn't change more than ~2%. [0] https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushed-emissions-sky-high-whats-next/ https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushe... > As somebody has pointed out below - a lot of those Chinese emissions are ultimately produced for use in other countries. Not really. See domestic power demand growth for non-green applications. [0]
  - DrScientist 2y ago
    It's easy to have the highest growth if you start from nowhere - when somebody quotes growth you should instantly be on guard for BS. For example the US could have gone from 1000 to 1020, and China from 200 to 220 - focusing on the larger percentage increase from China is rather missing the point. You are also forgetting total carbon emissions over the lifetime of a country - developed countries are responsible for a lot of the carbon in the atmosphere - and while developing countries might be catching up in day to day emissions they are nowhere in catching up in total emissions.
    - caminante 2y ago
      Your first paragraph is so strange, given my link and the source showing China is already responsible for +30% of global ghg emissions. This is directly to your point. You ironically have US and China flipped, and China is largest AND fastest growing. And cumulative emissions? Another ironic critique, given China is by far the largest and fastest growing emitter. Assuming you agree with the 1.5C target increase, we have a limited budget. Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.
triceratops 2y ago
Anyone can spin total emissions to suit whatever agenda they want to push. They're the world biggest emitter but that's just lines on a map. If they were 10 separate countries it wouldn't be the biggest emitter. But those emissions would still be there. China literally produces the most solar panels, electric cars, and batteries by far. In 2022 83% of new electricity generation in China was renewable (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037497). That doesn't scream a country that "doesn't care". They might be building a lot of new coal plants, but they aren't actually using them more than they already did (see above). Why would they waste their coal? They build more solar panels than they know what to do with, the sun is free, and they don't have NIMBY groups holding up construction.
- caminante 2y ago
  > emissions would still be there Except not. See this research showing that their domestic demand (ex-energy transition exports) is still massive and growing [0]. You're not alone as many on HN seem to have this misconception about greenwashing. The reality is different. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42805218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42805218
  - triceratops 2y ago
    You misunderstood my comment. I'm not talking about emissions due to exports or emissions due to building green tech. I'm saying the people who live there would emit the same amount whether they were 10 countries or 1. "China bad because total emissions" only comes up because they're 1 country. > their domestic [energy] demand is still massive and growing Of course that will happen as they develop their economy and improve their standard of living. But most of the new energy generation - 83% in 2022 - coming online is all renewable. Would you suggest they don't develop, and remain poor? They'd be justified in saying "You first, rich Westerner". People in gigantic SUVs shouldn't throw stones at people in electric cars.

rat87 2y ago

Start by not doing But China on global warming Second step do more as a country Third step try to shame or encourage China and other countries into doing more The US is still in the lead for total emissions historically and has a higher emissions per person. If it ignores it's responsibility it makes it very easy for China not to mention India or other lower total emissions countries to do the same. China is doing something if not enough. The goal should not be trying to find a way to avoid responsibility because that's how you get all countries to avoid doing anything. The point is too keep pushing all countries starting with yours to to more

dgfitz 2y ago
Yeah, that worked out phenomenally with US-china trade agreements!
caminante 2y ago
Not working. Do more? The US is buying pv panels produced on Chinese coal power. And no party is catching China's GHG productions. Arguing cumulative historicals is playing into propaganda, and per capita? China is doing enough? They're building new coal plants! You can't be serious.
- rat87 2y ago
  We need to do much much much more. Starting with banning ICE cars by 2035 if not sooner Did I say China was doing enough? No Are they do enough? Hell no Is the US doing enough? Hell no Arguing historicals and per capita plays into Chinese propaganda because there is some truth to it. There is also truth to the fact that China emits twice as much as the US and almost a third of the worlds emissions. I don't like or trust the authorian dictatorship of China But are you going to get China to emit less then they currently do by reversing the already inadequate measures the US is taking? No. We need to do much much more and get China and other countries to do more If we use excuses of other countries to do less then so will they and we will all burn up together.
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    Electric is seen as some miracle fix but it's really not that simple. ICE producton lines won't just disappear. Emergency and industrial vehicles will need to remain ICE to a large extent because you don't want to be reliant on the grid and because they need tons of range, there's a reason they pay for extra large fuel tanks. Vans and trucks don't really work as electric unless you're the post office just doing a trip around the block carrying no significant weight and stopping every 10 meters for the entire workday. Cost and fire concerns are an issue. People who travel long distance daily for work are much better served by a diesel. Also chucking all of our ICE cars at the third world probably isn't a good way of improving emissions. What we probably actually need is hybrids, eco fuels, lighter and smaller cars on average, (electric) motorcycles/scooters, vehicles that last longer, retrofit emission improvement kits for older vehicles, etc.
  - caminante 2y ago
    > did i say china was doing enough? No This is bad faith when your text says you want to shame them into doing more. Someone doing enough doesn't need to be shamed into further action.

droopyEyelids 2y ago

As an aside, there is a bit of a disconnect in how the west interpret's China as "not caring" whenever China doesn't make a lot of noise about publicly fixing something. The party can care, but decide something gets less priority, and put it in their backlog, the same way a project manager can! Air quality and industrial pollutants are a good example. Right now, China is prioritizing industrial expansion and energy stability until they hit whatever targets they have in mind. They'll be talking about carbon and pollution publicly once they can shut down their coal plants without destabilizing the grid.

caminante 2y ago
Listen to yourself. There is no disconnect. Deprioritizing is not caring. Saying otherwise is crazy!

jopicornell 2y ago

Let's not forget that China is the producer of the world and we are also responsible of that. Then there is the misconception that China doesn't care, but their cities are a lot greener and prepared for transitioning to green renewals than many west countries.

caminante 2y ago
> Their cities are a lot greener. Simple air quality indices would disagree. And greener than who? Are you going to cherrypick cities and energy mixes? You're still not offering a solution (carrot/stick) to "support" a solution.

forgotoldacc 2y ago

I love when people like you post with no concept of "per capita". Then there's always frustration at the people who do understand the concept and realize the "point" is simply a result of ignorance. China is at 30% renewable energy. The US is at 21%. And the president of the dirtiest country in the world, lots of smart people are saying it, that's just what they call the US these days, they say, passed an executive order to ban new solar and wind power. Sad!

briandear 2y ago
They say they are at 30% renewable. Much different than actually being 30%.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  except that these things are measurable and quite trivially
  - caminante 2y ago
    Not when actors report false numbers. China's track record is terrible on honest environmental reporting [0] and their power consumption has been greenwashed with electrification that makes a minor portion of their GHG growth [1]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/china-asks-embassies-to-stop-measuring-air-pollution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/china-asks-emb... [1] https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushed-emissions-sky-high-whats-next/ https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushe...
    - defrost 2y ago
      You have a 12 year old article about manual reporting of smog levels that's moot given the past decade of gas measuring satellites, and you ignore the fact that China isn't a closed country, it's one routinely visited by internationals including those from the IEA that directly inspect energy infrastructure.

DrScientist 2y ago

When comparing countries of different sizes - the fairest way to do so is on a per capita basis [1] and the US is still way ahead of China. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita [1] As somebody has pointed out below - a lot of those Chinese emissions are ultimately produced for use in other countries. Places like the UK have simply shipped their emissions overseas - then complain about these countries rising emissions.

caminante 2y ago
China has been responsible for 90% of the global growth in emissions since 2015. [0] Their population didn't change more than ~2%. [0] https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushed-emissions-sky-high-whats-next/ https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/chinas-manufacturing-pushe... > As somebody has pointed out below - a lot of those Chinese emissions are ultimately produced for use in other countries. Not really. See domestic power demand growth for non-green applications. [0]
- DrScientist 2y ago
  It's easy to have the highest growth if you start from nowhere - when somebody quotes growth you should instantly be on guard for BS. For example the US could have gone from 1000 to 1020, and China from 200 to 220 - focusing on the larger percentage increase from China is rather missing the point. You are also forgetting total carbon emissions over the lifetime of a country - developed countries are responsible for a lot of the carbon in the atmosphere - and while developing countries might be catching up in day to day emissions they are nowhere in catching up in total emissions.
  - caminante 2y ago
    Your first paragraph is so strange, given my link and the source showing China is already responsible for +30% of global ghg emissions. This is directly to your point. You ironically have US and China flipped, and China is largest AND fastest growing. And cumulative emissions? Another ironic critique, given China is by far the largest and fastest growing emitter. Assuming you agree with the 1.5C target increase, we have a limited budget. Allowing a catchup (cumulative/per capita?) isn't sustainable to achieve climate goals.

triceratops 2y ago

Anyone can spin total emissions to suit whatever agenda they want to push. They're the world biggest emitter but that's just lines on a map. If they were 10 separate countries it wouldn't be the biggest emitter. But those emissions would still be there. China literally produces the most solar panels, electric cars, and batteries by far. In 2022 83% of new electricity generation in China was renewable (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42037497). That doesn't scream a country that "doesn't care". They might be building a lot of new coal plants, but they aren't actually using them more than they already did (see above). Why would they waste their coal? They build more solar panels than they know what to do with, the sun is free, and they don't have NIMBY groups holding up construction.

caminante 2y ago
> emissions would still be there Except not. See this research showing that their domestic demand (ex-energy transition exports) is still massive and growing [0]. You're not alone as many on HN seem to have this misconception about greenwashing. The reality is different. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42805218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42805218
- triceratops 2y ago
  You misunderstood my comment. I'm not talking about emissions due to exports or emissions due to building green tech. I'm saying the people who live there would emit the same amount whether they were 10 countries or 1. "China bad because total emissions" only comes up because they're 1 country. > their domestic [energy] demand is still massive and growing Of course that will happen as they develop their economy and improve their standard of living. But most of the new energy generation - 83% in 2022 - coming online is all renewable. Would you suggest they don't develop, and remain poor? They'd be justified in saying "You first, rich Westerner". People in gigantic SUVs shouldn't throw stones at people in electric cars.